bleeding heart

Who? no one here has called for it to be suppressed. They vehemently disagree with it...and you think this is "contempt for freedom of speech and expression." ???? You don't really understand the concept, do you?

No, the idea is an elitist one in which less-moneyed citizens are inherently second class, and don't deserve a say in their own government. This is opposition to democracy. You're the one who doesn't understand democratic principles. You're insisting to us that you don't understand...and there's no need. I genuinely believe you.

Sorry, I was maybe unclear; I was responding to your remark about having a cottage. I was saying that I spent my entire life without one, didn't care about it, but now that I've got it, I absolutely love it. As for a/c...I like it, but I don't really mind doing without it. The wife, now, has a different view....

Why?

Can't argue with any of this.

Yes....and not to derail this thread, but sicne you mentioned it, I actually disagree with the point. My opinion is that the authorities weren't sufficiently galvanized in that case because most of the victims were lower-class, and many of them were prostitutes. So, same carefree ugliness, different smell.

But I was talking about the articles originally posted, on which the discussion as centred. I do take your point, certainly. But what I said remains precisely the case, as the further information you've provided was not part of the original citation, nor the discussion.

Only because you "wouldn't know how to go about implementing such an idea as policy." But as principle, you think it's pretty good, eh? So your adherence to democratic principles is exactly...zero. Congratulations.

Also, they tend disproportionately (way disproportionately) liberal and further Left, which also speaks very well for them.

The MEK (Muhajedin-e Khalq) is both a terrorist organization and a bizarre, Maoist-type religious cult. It has been formally designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department for many years. So under U.S. law, it is a felony to provide any "material support" or any "aid whatsoever" to the group. And in fact, in 2003, the Bush administration used them as part of their pretext for attacking Iraq: ( http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html ) It's all pretty clear cut...except for the potentially embarassing (and explosive) fact that a bi-partisan group of major (very major) politicians have been not only speaking on the MEK's behalf...but have taken money from them, for speaking fees and political advocacy. This is an open breach of the "material support" and "any aid whatsoever" sections of the law, and constitutes a felony. Indeed, people, notably American Muslims, have been prosecuted for far, far less egregious acts. Further, this open support for a terrorist group (and for terrorism itself) is, as I said, totally bi-partisan, and the names are big ones: Rudolph Giuliani Howard Dean Wesley Clark Andrew Card Tom Ridge ....and many more, including journalists, and Alan Dershowitz and Elie Wiesel. So, ok...these well-known and extremely influential political luminaries (and commentators) from both major parties are paid supporters and advocates for an officially designated terrorist organization, who also happen to be a weird religious cult. So how is it that this is not criminal? Well, it is, of course, criminal, by every and any definition. So how is Officialdom to keep these brazen, terror-supporting lawbreakers out of trouble? Why...de-list the MEK as a terrorist organization, of course! Beautiful, simple, perfect. After all, they are the sworn enemies of Iran...and Howard Dean himself said that their leader should be recognized as "Iran's President" (because little matters like "elections" are irrelevant). However, de-listing--a cynical and coldly-calculated political act, divorced from considerations like actual terrorism--does not, legally, retroactively exonerate the perpetrators. The group was officiall, formally designated as a Terrorist Group while these little gangsters were heping them out and taking payment for it. Here's Glenn Greenwald, who has written quite extensively on the subject: And all this doesn't even touch on the other subject in the article: the direct comparisons to those who have been prosecuted for less egregious behaviours under the selfsame Terrorism laws. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa

No, that's but one example, and has no effect on anyone not in Quebec.

You know, you didn't really strike me as an Ayn Rand fan, BD.

Limiting the vote to "property owners"--is one of those iterations? I don't believe you've thought this through...at all. But plainly it appeals to your (top-down) class warrior sensibilities.

Hey, yeah, why am I being left out?

Yes, but the usage is silly. It's like writing f*ck and then claiming innocence about the use of profanity.

You've implied elsewhere that it's Canadians as a whole. Do make up your mind.

Probably rationally curious about some governments...just not this particular one.

I think it's still under discussion. But my impression (and it's nothing more than that) is that few people actually give a damn.

Well, the fact is that any joke that is by design politically self-aggrandizing isn't, at bottom, meant as a joke; so, no, they are rarely (if ever) actually humorous. The target audience likes them because they sooth political biases. Which is arguably the opposite of what a good joke should do.

Profound as "Jersey Shore." There are a little handful of posters here who can't seem to type without "the left" being burped out, and sounding as if it's boiling with maggots. My advice to the Left-obssessed folks is to become more economical in their writing: they could simply respond to every post with "the Left! the Left!" Full stop. It would save them time, make them no more the objects of ridicule than they already are....and after all, it completely sums up their sober political perspectives anyway.

Well, just so. We've all heard plenty of griping about the US, but Canadians think more highly of America than most people do.

Sure, that's not some kind of hatefully promiscuous overgeneralization, not at all!

Oh, yes. sincerely; I genuinely mean that. Like the Bible, for instance. Which I don't think you understand at all. If you didn't question my comprehension, I'm afraid I'd have to rethink everything I ever said.

Sure...if one is opposed to the essential core of democratic principles.

Then your beef should be with the inarguable perpetrators of the political correctness stultification--officials, law enforcement, etc--rather than with the arguable precipitators: "the left."